Terry McAulay's take on it (pasting here, from multiple twitter posts:)
https://x.com/tjmcaulay/status/2117335850165960859?a=FcpZgCtksMSQ9P4CUp4&s=20Thoughts on Viewer Access to Replay Reviews
<Warning: It's very long>
From the beginning, I was skeptical of how this could be successfully implemented. In theory, it’s a great way to provide insights into Replay/Command Centers evaluations of often critical and game-impacting situations.
My skepticism was always its application in the real world. I think that skepticism has proven itself as we’ve seen in numerous games in multiple conferences.
Here’s what I think is happening:
Background:
Beyond correcting obvious and rather easy on-field errors, Replay reviews become very complex very quickly. That includes not just the rules but sometimes highly subjective judgments.
That complexity and the need for consistency forced the introduction of the collaborative model involving the Referee, the in-stadium Replay Official, and a Command Center. That concept demands open communications between all parties. It’s not unusual for one of the parties to go down a wrong path requiring another party to intervene and right the ship.
Prior to providing that communication to the world, this was a free exchange and allowed for input that helped lead to the correct answer.
Now, with everyone hearing the conversation, human nature tells us there is going to be trepidation whereby people now become either consciously or subconsciously concerned about what to say, how to say it, or whether to speak at all. Basically, “optics” has taken center stage rather than accurate outcomes.
Example, for the incorrectly applied 10-second runoff in BYU/UCF, I think it’s reasonable to consider that one of the participants may have thought it didn’t apply but wasn’t sure. Did he fail to speak up so as not to add confusion for world to hear? Very possible in my opinion.
Remember, reviews can often be incredibly pressure-filled and very complex. Adding anything that distracts reviewers from complete and total focus on the task at hand no doubt lowers the chances of correct outcomes.
That being said, let’s address what exactly we’re hearing or more importantly what we are not hearing.
To mitigate the complexities and subjectiveness, officiating leadership created “processes” to assist Replay Officials in making consistently accurate decisions. There is a process for evaluating targeting, catch/no catch (in all forms), QB pass/fumble, clock adjustments, etc. and when applying this process officials should be using language directly from the rule book.
What we are hearing during many reviews is the failure of Replay officials to use these processes. They seem to be resorting to what they think or how they feel about the play.
For example:
The targeting review process is this:
Is the player defenseless?
Did the opponent take aim for the purpose of attacking?
Is there an indicator?
Is there the required forcible contact?
The best recent examples I can point to are the two targeting plays from Boise State/Texas State and Texas Tech/Cincinnati.
In neither review did we hear them use the process and I can’t remember the last time I heard a targeting review use it. We also saw this manifest itself in recent controversial catch/no catch play situations.
In summary, while fans obviously appreciate listening in, it has certainly not created better outcomes and I believe I can make a strong case that accuracy of outcomes is worse.
I concede this is here to stay, so what do I think can be done to improve?
As for “optics over outcomes”, I don’t have an great answer, other than hoping that in time, Replay personnel will become comfortable working in an environment where everyone is listening to every word, syllable, tone, etc. so that their focus is entirely on the matter at hand.
Further, they absolutely must return to the proscribed Replay processes when evaluating complex play situations and they must also consistently use the exact verbiage in the rulebook.
By doing this, we should see more consistently accurate outcomes among all conferences. It would also minimize the possibility of the rules errors that we’ve seen recently. Moreover, fans will become accustomed to the proper terminology and everyone will better understand exactly how specific plays are being reviewed. In other words, we should hear the exact same thing in evaluations of similar plays whether it be the ACC, Big 12, or PAC-12.
Lastly, I’m not going to discuss the need for getting Conferences out of the officiating business here, as I’ve done that many times in the past, but it remains highest on my list for improving all officiating.
